Comment & Debate
Assault weapons were banned in the United States in 1994, but the ban was left to expire in 2004 during the Bush Administration. Since then, many ban bills have been introduced in Congress, but none have passed, even in the wake of multiple mass shootings involving assault weapons. The original ban was directed at semiautomatic firearms having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense (examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for attaching silencers). The law banned 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving cylinder shotguns. It also has a “features test” provision banning other semiautomatics having two or more military-style features. In sum, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had identified 118 models and variations that were prohibited by the law. A number of the banned guns were foreign semiautomatic rifles that had been banned from importation into the U.S. since 1989. The ban also prohibited most ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (referred to as large capacity magazines, or LCMs). An LCM is arguably the most functionally important feature of most AWs, many of which have magazines holding 30 or more rounds. Approximately 18% of civilian-owned firearms and 21% of civilian-owned handguns were equipped with LCMs. The assault weapons ban expired in 2004, and was not renewed by Congress. The fact that it was not renewed was highly contentious among the general American public and in the halls of Congress. Many continue to call for the renewal of the ban or a fresh assault weapons ban, which some hope would solve problems with the first legislation. Gun rights advocates continue to oppose any ban, and the debate continues.
While the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is used widely, what it misses is the extent to which assault weapons enable deranged individuals to kill massively.
The use of assault weapons was down 17% from 1994 levels in 2004, according to one report.
“Since enactment of the law, the number of assault weapons traced to crime scenes has dropped 45%, according to Crime Gun Solutions LLC, a consulting firm.” [1]
“Deaths caused by guns dropped from 38,505 in 1994 to 29,573 in 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While crime experts say the drop resulted from several factors, such as fewer gang shootings involving crack cocaine, they cite the assault weapons ban and other gun controls passed in 1993 and 1994 as among the causes”[2]
Assault weapons can hold and fire more rounds. This is directly proportional to how many people can be killed.
Assault weapons are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths of law enforcement agents.
Police, those that have the most experience dealing with crime, are strongly in favor of gun control laws. Why is this? First, many cops have been killed by assault weapons, and these brave law enforcement officers must consistently deal with the fear that criminals they encounter will be packing assault weapons. Second, they recognize that assault weapons are used by some criminals and madmen to inflict maximum casualties. Finally, they see first hand instances in which assault weapons can be used offensively and defensively, and it is notable that they conclude, ultimately, that assault weapons should not be available to the public.
These types of assault weapons are not counted in the number of deaths due to assault weapons. Therefore, for at least the weapons that were banned, a drop in violence can be appropriately attributed.
While it may be impossible to get rid of all assault weapons, what is possible is to decrease the supply of assault weapons. This makes them more difficult to obtain and drives up their price on the market, which makes them less attractive to prospective buyers. This all generally decreases the presence of assault weapons on the street and in crime.
The obvious intent of the 1994 assault weapons ban was to decrease criminal acts in which assault weapons were used. But, the assault weapons ban has not done this.
While criminals wanted to carry powerful automatic weapons in the 90s, they now prefer hand guns, as they are concealable and yet still have the necessary deadly force for them to commit crimes.
Many guns that remained publicly available after the 1994 assault weapons ban were effectively as lethal as the weapons that were banned under the legislation. This is largely because simple adjustments to assault weapons allowed exemptions from the ban. And, it is clear that many of the weapons used in the most deadly massacres, such as the Columbine or Virginia Tech massacres in the United States, were not banned by the assault weapons law.
“The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.”
The sale of assault weapons continued beyond the 1994 ban, but with very slight modifications, such as the sawing off of muzzles, to exploit the loopholes of the ban. Therefore, there was never exactly a ban on assault weapons, but simply a shift in how the manufacturers produced them. And, despite the fact that assault weapons were still being produced and sold, there were still drops in crime and the use of assault weapons on the streets. This suggests that assault weapons were not actually the issue.
Because knives are a more common weapon of choice for criminals, particularly because they are concealable, they have led to more deaths than assault weapons. Yet, Knives aren’t banned. It’s important to keep the relatively low societal risks in mind.
Some gun control advocates actually welcome the expiration of the 1994 assault weapons ban as a means to producing better gun control laws in the future.
A shotgun, pistol, or rifle are all adequate means of self-defense. These are powerful weapons with heavy destructive force. They can easily kill multiple assailants in rapid succession when used properly. If there is any concern about the ability of a gun owner to wield a shotgun or pistol properly such that they can kill multiple assailants, than they should seek enhanced training instead of an assault weapon.
While a right to self defense exists, it is important to note that more people are accidentally killed by their own guns than are saved by them. On this account, is the possession of guns, assault weapon or other, really “self-defense”? Furthermore, assuming that gun ownership involves risks, the ownership of more deadly assault weapons may increase the risk of accidental death or mutilation.
“Assault weapons have no place in society. Beyond the military and law enforcement — the militia armed to defend us in the 21st century — they aren’t needed for anything, except killing innocents en masse.”
Revolver pistols typically hold 6 rounds. It is significant possibility that a person defending themselves from robbers or assailants would need more than 6 rounds, particularly if there are two or three of them. Yet, re-loading a revolver is time consuming and not a good situation to be in the face of attackers.
A ban on semi-automatic weapons would damage the revenue of small business.
Semi-automatic assault weapons are weapons in which one pull of the trigger shoots one bullet. These weapons are commonly used at shooting ranges and in hunting. Yet, they are often misrepresented as “machine guns” with heavy destructive force.
Research from the University of Massachusetts, cited by ThinkProgress, found that, from 1994-2004, there were only 12 incidents due to assault weapons, totaling some 89 deaths. In the decade following, after the ban expired, both numbers spiked and from 2004-2014, there were 34 incidents involving assault weapons – and over 300 deaths.
Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts researcher who wrote a book on mass-shooting violence published in 2016, said: “The original intent of the assault-weapons ban was to reduce the carnage of mass shootings [not to reduce overall crime]. And on that front the data indicate that it worked.”
A few sources dispute whether the expiry of the 1993 ban in 2004 resulted in an increase in the rate of mass shootings. One writer in the Los Angeles Times, for example, disputes the Klarevas University of Massachusetts study, arguing that it was statistically flawed in finding that the rate of mass shootings had increased in the years since the ban expired.
Since the Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear arms’ applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual’s right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm,” (Stevens v. United States).
Most individuals seeking a ban on assault weapons just want assault weapons to be banned.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. (Heller vs. District of Columbia) Delivered in 2008.
To access the second half of this Issue Report Login or Buy Issue Report
To access the second half of all Issue Reports Login or Subscribe Now
